I think it’s strange to talk about Christianity and then forget about heaven and eternal damnation. It sounds like if you believe in eternal damnation of non Christians, your effective priorities need to be drastically different. Prioritizing the infinite afterlife is infinitely more effective than prioritizing life.
If Christians wanted to give effectively, they would surely continue giving to Christian branded charities that therefore continue spreading the popularity of Christianity to save the most souls. Their priorities are in conflict with secular organizations.
It’s worth recognizing that not all Christians believe in eternal damnation; and among those who do, some believe there is a limited quota to get into heaven. There is really quite a diversity of Christian dogma out there.
Seems like the commenter is hung up on this “Because afterlife, evangelism dominates” view.
Saving children’s lives from malaria might have much greater eternal value than preaching a sermon. That’s because preaching and evangelism plausibly aren’t the only thing that influence the afterlife. It’s commonly held that good deeds will be rewarded in the afterlife, even if only as memories (Matt 5:12). Any positive good experienced over an infinite timeframe is, of course, infinite.
Recently, philosophers like Brian Cutter and Philip Swenson have written about this in their Connection-building theodicy. Bentham’s Bulldog wrote about that here.
So consequentialist-leaning Christians might not prioritize evangelism at all costs.
Most people (Christians included) don’t lean heavily towards consequentialism, anyways, and take at face value the (hundreds) of biblical commands to care for the poor, sick and marginalized.
Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively. So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel. But probably that shouldn’t be the only place that they give—the Bible seems to suggest it’s very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.
I don’t know where else to put this comment so I put it here because this is closest to my view.
After reading these comments as a committed church-going Christian who also happens to donate to EA charities (like you implied because Jesus commanded to help the poor materially and not just spiritually, so it’s more rule based) it feels funny that non-Christians—at least I think the commenters here are non-Christians—so often think they know what Christianity means better than people who actually believe the tenets of Christianity.
My personal opinion about Jesus and God when it comes to this subject is that individuals Christians aren’t supposed to go to heroic lengths to figure out and calculate how to utilitarianly maximize the amount of quality adjusted life years in Heaven and minimize the same when it comes to Hell, but that it all depends on God who is already omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent so individual Christians don’t have to be, and Christians just follow Jesus and His literal commandments as best they can.
I think the only way to rescue the Bible as an EA-compatible document is by arguing that everything other than evangelism is just there to make evangelism and missionary work more successful. You need to give to the poor, follow the ten commandments, etc. because otherwise there’s no Christianity to spread. But ultimately these are instrumental, the ultimate goal for every action is to keep souls out of the infinite-disvalue place.
Of course, but then you’re left with a much weaker claim, this small subset of Christians with a heterodox, uniquely EA-compatible theology should be effective altruists.
Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance. In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one’s answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities.
But this is what the first commenter’s argument is, that’s why Christianity would be incompatible with EA. A truly EA, non-universalist Christianity does not explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance because by their lights it clearly is. And yet the Bible does say to do all these other good but non-maximally-effective things! Unless, as mentioned, they’re all weirdly instrumental.
I think it’s strange to talk about Christianity and then forget about heaven and eternal damnation. It sounds like if you believe in eternal damnation of non Christians, your effective priorities need to be drastically different. Prioritizing the infinite afterlife is infinitely more effective than prioritizing life.
If Christians wanted to give effectively, they would surely continue giving to Christian branded charities that therefore continue spreading the popularity of Christianity to save the most souls. Their priorities are in conflict with secular organizations.
It’s worth recognizing that not all Christians believe in eternal damnation; and among those who do, some believe there is a limited quota to get into heaven. There is really quite a diversity of Christian dogma out there.
Seems like the commenter is hung up on this “Because afterlife, evangelism dominates” view.
Saving children’s lives from malaria might have much greater eternal value than preaching a sermon. That’s because preaching and evangelism plausibly aren’t the only thing that influence the afterlife. It’s commonly held that good deeds will be rewarded in the afterlife, even if only as memories (Matt 5:12). Any positive good experienced over an infinite timeframe is, of course, infinite.
Recently, philosophers like Brian Cutter and Philip Swenson have written about this in their Connection-building theodicy. Bentham’s Bulldog wrote about that here.
So consequentialist-leaning Christians might not prioritize evangelism at all costs.
Most people (Christians included) don’t lean heavily towards consequentialism, anyways, and take at face value the (hundreds) of biblical commands to care for the poor, sick and marginalized.
Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively. So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel. But probably that shouldn’t be the only place that they give—the Bible seems to suggest it’s very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.
From my understanding, biblical morality is generally deontological, not utilitarian.
I don’t know where else to put this comment so I put it here because this is closest to my view.
After reading these comments as a committed church-going Christian who also happens to donate to EA charities (like you implied because Jesus commanded to help the poor materially and not just spiritually, so it’s more rule based) it feels funny that non-Christians—at least I think the commenters here are non-Christians—so often think they know what Christianity means better than people who actually believe the tenets of Christianity.
My personal opinion about Jesus and God when it comes to this subject is that individuals Christians aren’t supposed to go to heroic lengths to figure out and calculate how to utilitarianly maximize the amount of quality adjusted life years in Heaven and minimize the same when it comes to Hell, but that it all depends on God who is already omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent so individual Christians don’t have to be, and Christians just follow Jesus and His literal commandments as best they can.
I think the only way to rescue the Bible as an EA-compatible document is by arguing that everything other than evangelism is just there to make evangelism and missionary work more successful. You need to give to the poor, follow the ten commandments, etc. because otherwise there’s no Christianity to spread. But ultimately these are instrumental, the ultimate goal for every action is to keep souls out of the infinite-disvalue place.
You can also go the way more plausible route and simply be a universalist!
Of course, but then you’re left with a much weaker claim, this small subset of Christians with a heterodox, uniquely EA-compatible theology should be effective altruists.
Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance. In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one’s answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities.
But this is what the first commenter’s argument is, that’s why Christianity would be incompatible with EA. A truly EA, non-universalist Christianity does not explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance because by their lights it clearly is. And yet the Bible does say to do all these other good but non-maximally-effective things! Unless, as mentioned, they’re all weirdly instrumental.